Page 1 of 1 J3/05-263
Subject: Purely editorial?
From: Van Snyder
Date: 2005 September 1
==========================================================================
[16:10-11] The sentence "In addition, data objects of derived type may be
used as procedure arguments and function results, and may appear in
input/output lists" appears not to do anything useful. Delete it (or add
intrinsic assignment to the list).
==========================================================================
[17:1] Delete because it's wrong.
==========================================================================
What is the point of saying "any intrinsic or derived type" instead of
simply "any type"? Are there any types other than intrinsic and derived?
I think not.
[17:24] Delete "intrinsic type or derived"
[18:20] Delete "intrinsic type or derived"
Replace the edit for [75:7] from 05-201r2:
Within the first paragraph of 5.1.1.1 TYPE replace "a derived" by
"any".
[106:4-5] Delete "It applies to both intrinsic and derived types." At
least replace "both intrinsic and derived" by "all".
[193:8+8-10] What does the sentence "However ... above rule" mean? What
"above rule"? Delete the sentence.
[197:7] "intrinsic or derived types" => "any type".
[197:38-39] "intrinsic or derived types" => "any type".
==========================================================================
[49:9] The label definition for Note 4.25 is here. Move it into the note.
[55:0+2] The reference to Note 4.25 quotes its subclause number instead of
its note number because the label is defined incorrectly.
==========================================================================
[286:34] The "or" on this line is the second one in the sentence. Insert
a comma before it. Or reword the sentence to something like "... argument
with the INTENT(OUT), INTENT(INOUT), or POINTER attribute."
==========================================================================
[313:21] The description of VECTOR_A says "shall be of numeric type... or
of logical type. The description of VECTOR_B begins "shall be of numeric
type..." but then switches to "type logical." Can we say "logical type"
instead of "type logical" in the description of VECTOR_B?
==========================================================================
[354:25-26] It's unfortunate that 354:26 begins with a right parenthesis.
Removing the ~ after the A in both sample references should repair it.
==========================================================================
[447:24] Split into separate lines because the syntax is not consistent
with R451.